And @mikenz66
Well, if you’d like to know how the elements were understood as divine forces or beings, you can just look at the name for them in Pāli: called four mahābhūta or ‘great beings.’ Then look at that in Vedic sources such as the Samhitas, Brahmanas and Upanisads. There the elements are active forces operating in the world and out of which the world is made by dividing it up and whatnot. The term for fire was ‘Agni,’ a principal god/force; water was sometimes called Varuna (a god), and so forth.
I’ve found one example from an early Upaniṣad, the Aitareiya, with a footnote by Olivelle (an expert in this field):
“Who is this self (atman)?”—that is how we venerate. … It is brahman; it is Indra; it is Prajapati; it is all the gods. It is these five immense beings [mahābhūtāni]—earth, wind, space, the waters, and the lights; it is these beings, as well as those that are some sort of mixture of trivial beings, living beings of various sorts—those born from eggs, from wombs, from sweat, and from sprouts. It is horses, cattle, men, and elephants. It is everything that has life—those that move, those that fly, and those that are stationary.
[Note:] immense beings [mahabhutani]: this term has the technical meaning of primary ele-
ments (earth, water, fire, air, and ether) in later philosophies, but here, I think, they refer to the five large and expansive beings, as opposed to the small individual entities
Here, notice how ‘these beings’ (the elements) are put next to other beings that are living and born in various ways. So there is an implied relationship between the great beings — the primary elements of the world — and smaller trivial, individual beings. Olivelle mentions this in his note some.
Of course, there is also the more mundane material sense of the elements, but that is related and intertwined with their divine connotations. We read in the EBTs (see MN 28, etc.) that an element can be ‘kuppati’ — agitated / disturbed. This verb is used for sentient emotions like anger or being annoyed, and is used for the elements when there are floods, large fires, changes in wind, etc.
Even when criticized a little bit she loses her temper, becoming annoyed, hostile, and hard-hearted, and displaying annoyance, hate, and bitterness.
Appampi vuttā samānā abhisajjati kuppati byāpajjati patitthīyati, kopañca dosañca appaccayañca pātukaroti.
Notice the synonyms with kuppati, and then how it is used with the elements:
There comes a time when the exterior water element flares up.
Hoti kho so, āvuso, samayo yaṁ bāhirā āpodhātu pakuppati.
So we aren’t supposed to believe that water is a sentient being, but there is a kind of personification there which says something of how they imagined and thought of the elements: they are a kind of all-encompassing material force that shifts and moves. The water in the sea and the water in our body is all made of the same water element/property, and these have particular behaviors they display.
We can, however, notice the distinction between dhātu and mahābhūta. The term mahābhūta is used only for the four (earth, water, fire, wind) in the suttas, whereas dhātu is used for five or six (space + consciousness). This is, like others and I have said, because the ākāsa property of our experience was understood to be derived and conditioned based on the other four great elements in the world. So we could say that those four were understood to be more primary and fundamental to the natural world, whereas space just kind of derived out of their relationship and separation. In other philosophical systems, ākāsa was thought to be primary.
So the term dhātu is used for earth/water/fire/wind/space/consciousness, but also the sense bases and consciousnesses (SN 14.1), as well as the aggregates (SN 22.3) and other miscellaneous usages like planes of existence, types of groups, and so forth (e.g. MN 115, SN 14, etc.). This is because the term dhātu just means any element of experience or a larger whole; a kind of property within the range of some category. So the property/element of earth within the material world; the element of the eye, sights, and eye-consciousness within the visual sphere; the element of volition or feeling within the aggregates. This word has less “baggage” than does mahābhūta, which is used specifically for four things.
We can see the term dhātu used in relation to a tree trunk as well at AN 6.41. There, a tree trunk is said to contain the earth, water, fire and wind elements. However, the sutta also says it contains the element of beauty and non-beauty (subha/asubha). So again, the word dhātu here is not the same as the mahābhūtāni, but is obviously related somehow. It seems that the sutta is indicating that a tree trunk has these various properties or elements to it, and strong meditators can pick up on one of those and amplify it with their mind to alter the trunk. So again, beauty/ugliness are subjective properties or qualities of an experience. Here, we get the picture that the dhātu are both ‘material’ in one sense, but also related to our subjective experience of them in another.
There is an article on the term dhātu in Early Buddhism here, by Gabriel Ellis. The author also briefly discusses the use of mahābhūta in contrast, and notes that the four Great Beings/Elements seem to be used in more objective, material contexts (as beings/forces in the world), whereas dhātu has a more subjective incline to it. These are shades of meaning and cultural context rather than strict philosophical statements, but they help contribute to our understanding.
